## 1. Impacts of Corporate Debt Restructuring on Per Capita Real GDP

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [1. Impacts of Corporate Debt Restructuring on Per Capita Real GDP](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/wp1717.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/wp/wp1717.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/wp/wp1717.pdf.json)

---

### I. Introduction — context, aims, and empirical scope
- Context and drivers
  - Korean corporates faced challenges from sluggish global trade and rising competition from emerging markets, particularly China.
  - Heavy industrial sectors with excess capacity include shipbuilding, shipping, steel, and petrochemical industries.
- Role of restructuring and international experience (high-level lessons cited)
  - Timely restructuring; role of financial supervisors to encourage loan restructuring.
  - Clear guidelines to facilitate collective workouts (e.g., the London Approach).
  - Financial soundness of banks to enable earlier action; flexibility in out-of-court restructuring.
  - Importance of market infrastructure (M&As, buyout funds, transparent disclosure).
  - Multi-faceted debt restructuring approaches observed in successful cases.
- Empirical objectives and scope
  - Estimates macro effects of corporate restructuring using cross-country panel fixed effects models for 33 advanced economies, 1992–2012.
  - Key empirical questions:
    - Short-term and medium-term macro effects of corporate restructuring.
    - Channels for positive or negative impacts.
    - Effect of a rise in M&A on growth.
  - Model specifications:
    - Effect of a reduction in aggregate corporate debt-to-equity on real GDP growth.
    - Effects of systemic debt reduction periods via a corporate restructuring dummy on real GDP growth.
    - Impacts of M&A on growth.

### II. Approach to corporate restructuring — definitions and types
- Definitions and levels
  - Corporate restructuring: discrete decisive measures to increase competitiveness and enhance firm value; operational or financing improvements to transform the firm or enable survival.
  - Levels: whole economy, industry, and firm.
- Types of restructuring
  - Operational restructuring: reduce labor and production costs; improve production mix; introduce new products; enhance distribution channels.
  - Investment restructuring: changes in fixed capital or working capital investment.
  - Financial restructuring: reduction of debt; injections of capital; debt-to-equity swaps; reduced interest rates, longer maturities, partial write-downs; asset sales; equity issues.
  - Forms in practice: financial restructuring, mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, buy-outs, business line redesign.
  - Debt restructuring classifications: formal (bankruptcy/liquidation) and informal (debt transfers to government agency, work-out department, bank subsidiary; debt-for-debt swaps; equity-for-debt swaps; debt sales).

### III. Corporate condition and restructuring in Korea — vulnerabilities and policy bank exposures
- Aggregate conditions and sectoral pressures
  - Aggregate corporate sector relatively healthy overall, but pockets of vulnerabilities.
  - Overall corporate leverage remains relatively low, but profitability fell since 2010.
  - Weaker firms became more leveraged while profits declined sharply.
  - Hard-hit sectors: shipbuilding, shipping, petrochemical, steel, construction.
- Illustrative indicators (described)
  - Shipbuilders: negative and volatile ROA in 2006–2015 for Hyundai Heavy Industries, Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering, Samsung Engineering.
  - Shipping firms: elevated leverage (total liabilities to equity ratio) in 2006–2015 for Hyundai Merchant Marine and Hanjin Shipping.
- Credit risk and policy bank exposures (as of March 2016)
  - Korea EXIM: W 38 trillion (2½ percent of GDP).
  - KDB: W 20 trillion (1¼ percent of GDP).
  - Policy banks facing potential loan losses affecting capital position and policy lending capacity.

### Policy response precedent and fund operations
- Bank Recapitalization Fund (2009) — summary of arrangements (content partially truncated in source).
- Fund purchases and operation (subsequent fund)
  - The fund purchased hybrid securities of W 3.5 trillion and subordinate debt securities of W 0.5 trillion of eight commercial bank or regional banks.
  - The fund was in operation through 2014.
- Policy Bank Recapitalization Fund (2016)
  - Government supplementary budget allocations:
    - W 1 trillion to Korea EXIM.
    - W 0.4 trillion to KDB.
  - Fund details:
    - Up to W 11 trillion as a contingency plan.
    - Financing:
      - W 1 trillion in loans from the Industrial Bank of Korea.
      - Up to W 10 trillion in short-term loans from the BOK.
    - The fund will purchase policy banks’ Tier 1 or Tier 2 contingent convertible (CoCo) bonds, on a capital-call basis.
    - Size and actual use depend on extent and speed of corporate restructuring and credit conditions of vulnerable industries.
    - The fund will likely be in operation through end-2017, and may be changed during the end-year review of the fund.

### Three-track restructuring strategy (based on urgency and risk)
- Track 1: Industry-wide restructuring in cyclically sensitive industries (shipbuilding and shipping)
  - Public sector closely involved because policy banks are main creditor banks.
  - Main creditor banks encouraged debt-distressed firms to present comprehensive revitalization plans.
  - Three major shipbuilding firms’ revitalization plans amounted to W 10.3 trillion (0.7 percent of GDP), including sale of non-core assets, business reorganization, and downsizing.
  - Major shipping firms reached debt reduction agreements with creditors or negotiated charter fees.
- Track 2: Restructuring of individual weak firms through banks’ regular credit assessment under financial supervisors’ oversight
  - Based on the Corporate Restructuring Act; banks assess credit risk and may agree on financial restructuring via workout or rehabilitation programs.
  - Corporates under debt restructuring rose to 229 as of end-2015 (including 54 large corporations), from 159 firms in 2014.
- Track 3: Preemptive industry restructuring led by industry (M&A, downsizing, business line exchanges)
  - Aimed at addressing overcapacity in sectors such as petrochemical and steel.
  - The Corporate Vitality Enhancement Act (“One-Shot Law”), effective August 2016, facilitates M&A and restructuring via streamlined legal procedures and tax incentives (e.g., deferral of capital gains tax from equity transfers, and installment payments of transfer gains tax).

### Observations on restructuring progress and institutional gaps
- Slower-than-desired progress since 2011.
- Factors slowing restructuring:
  - Uncertain industry outlook leading banks to delay loan restructuring for fear of loss realization.
  - Concerns about employment, regional economies, and difficulties for major firms.
- Suggested institutional improvements:
  - Larger role for capital markets in normal times:
    - Private equity funds limited by size; low historical M&A activity despite recent pickup.
    - Underdeveloped non-performing-loans market.
  - Strengthen out-of-court restructuring framework:
    - Uncertainty over loss sharing between bank and nonbank creditors reduces banks’ incentives to initiate restructuring.
    - Korea’s revised Corporate Restructuring Promotion Act (effective March 2016) extends coverage to all creditors including bond creditors and offshore financial institutions, and strengthens main creditor banks’ rights to request other creditors to freeze exercise of creditor rights.
    - Essential to build good track records of out-of-court restructuring under the new law.

### Lessons from corporate restructuring in other countries (selected)
- Swift, timely restructuring is crucial; delayed restructuring can result in sluggish investment and weak productivity growth.
- Financial supervisors should proactively encourage banks to carry out loan restructuring, notably through debt-equity swaps.
- Government intervention and resulting ownership can incur significant costs; SOEs tend to incur higher debt costs.
- Supportive fiscal policy and enhanced social safety nets help incentivize and facilitate restructuring when property market weakness or unemployment rises.
- Banks’ sufficient capital position is key to enabling timely loss recognition and recapitalization; otherwise government may need to enforce recognition of losses and recapitalize banks.
- Clear legal frameworks and market infrastructure (transparent disclosure, deeper M&A and buyout markets) facilitate restructuring.
- Tax regimes matter: favorable tax treatment on debt write-offs encourages restructuring; common law systems tend to provide more favorable tax treatment than civil law systems.
- Successful restructurings often combine financial and operational measures, private-sector participation (private equity/hedge funds), asset disposals, covenant waivers, and management reliability.

### Empirical analysis — data, stylized facts, and econometric findings
- Data and sample
  - Main variables: IMF WEO (January 2016), OECD, Worldscope, Dealogic, Laeven and Valencia (2012), Svirydzenka (2016).
  - Panel of 33 advanced economies, 1992–2012 (annual data).
- Stylized relationships (OLS fitted lines, uncontrolled)
  - Initial corporate debt-to-equity vs. subsequent real per capita GDP growth:
    - Coefficient of initial corporate debt-to-equity is around -0.009.
    - Interpretation: a 10 percentage decrease in initial corporate debt-to-equity could be associated with a subsequent increase in real per capita GDP of around 0.09 percentage points.
  - M&A activity vs. per capita real GDP growth:
    - A 10 percent increase in M&A activity could lead to a 0.02 increase in real per capita GDP growth with a lag of two years.
  - Initial corporate debt-to-equity vs. investment-to-GDP (lag of one year):
    - Coefficient ~ -0.53.
    - Interpretation: a 10 percentage reduction in initial corporate debt-to-equity could be associated with a subsequent increase in investment-to-GDP of around 5.3 percentage points.
  - Initial corporate debt-to-equity vs. capital productivity:
    - A 10 percent reduction in debt-to-equity could be linked with a subsequent rise in capital productivity of around 9 percentage points.
- Econometric model and key results (panel fixed effects, 33 advanced economies, 1992–2012)
  - Corporate restructuring dummy (DUMCDR) defined as more than 12 percent decline (y/y) in debt-to-equity of 75th percentile firms in a given year.
  - Interaction: DUMCDR × financial institution depth to estimate financial spillovers.
  - Banking crisis dummy included to address endogeneity.
  - Main findings summarized from regressions:
    - Lagged Debt-to-equity: negative and statistically significant with real per capita GDP (e.g., -0.005*** (0.00) across panels in Table 1).
    - Lagged Corporate restructuring dummy: positive and statistically significant with real per capita GDP (e.g., 0.004* (0.07); 0.005* (0.06); 0.02*** (0.00) across panels in Table 1).
    - Interaction Lagged corporate restructuring dummy * financial institutions development: -0.025** (0.01) — negative and statistically significant, indicating negative financial spillovers can partly offset positive effects.
    - Lagged initial PPP per capita GDP: negative and statistically significant (e.g., -0.07*** (0.00); -0.08*** (0.00); -0.08** (0.00)), consistent with income convergence.
  - Goodness of fit and sample sizes (Table 1 snapshot)
    - Sample sizes: 586 551 551.
    - R-sq: 0.58 0.60 0.59.

### Impacts of M&A, employment, and channels (tables summaries)
- Impacts of M&A on real per capita GDP (Table 2)
  - Lagged M&A to GDP (lag of two years): 0.004** (0.01); 0.004*** (0.01); 0.004*** (0.01) across panels — positive and statistically significant.
  - Interpretation: M&A/GDP positively associated with real GDP growth with a lag of two years; lag reflects time to realize synergies.
- Short-term effect on employment (Table 3)
  - Debt-to-equity and unemployment:
    - Debt-to-equity negatively associated with unemployment rates in same period in some specifications (e.g., -0.003** (0.01)).
  - Corporate restructuring dummy:
    - Positively associated with unemployment rates in same period in some specifications (e.g., 0.004** (0.04)).
  - Government gross debt and fiscal balance correlated with unemployment in some models:
    - Government gross debt: 0.04*** (0.00).
    - Government fiscal balance: -0.16*** (0.00); -0.20*** (0.00).
  - Interpretation: Negative employment effects appear limited to the short term; not found at a one-year lag in some panels. Policy implication: provide social safety nets and assistance to affected workers.
  - Sample sizes and fit (Table 3 snapshot):
    - Sample size: 586 551 586 551.
    - R-sq: 0.77 0.84 0.77 0.83.
- Channels: investment and capital productivity (Table 4)
  - Lagged Debt-to-equity: negative and statistically significant with investment and capital productivity (e.g., -0.43*** (0.00); -0.68*** (0.00); -0.61*** (0.00)).
  - Lagged Corporate restructuring dummy: positively associated with investment with a lag of one year (e.g., 0.36* (0.08); 0.43** (0.05)).
  - Interpretation: Main positive channel of corporate restructuring on growth is via increased investment and improved capital productivity.
  - Sample sizes and fit (Table 4 snapshot):
    - Sample size: 586 551 341 332.
    - R-sq: 0.34 0.36 0.62 0.65.

### Conclusions and policy-relevant findings
- Main empirical findings
  - Both corporate debt restructuring and M&A activity have a positive effect on real GDP growth with time lags.
  - Debt restructuring can raise investment and capital productivity in the medium term.
  - Corporate restructuring can have negative short-term effects on employment and negative spillovers to the financial sector.
- Policy implications and lessons (authors’ recommendations)
  - Ensure swift, timely restructuring with active role for financial supervisory authorities to encourage credit restructuring.
  - Ensure capital adequacy of banks and consider appropriate government facilitation of restructuring (recapitalization facilities, contingency funds).
  - Provide clear guidelines to facilitate collective workouts that include non-financial creditors.
  - Establish an appropriate regulatory framework for spin-in and M&A activity; encourage market infrastructure to promote restructuring in normal times.
  - Implement firm-level financial and operational restructuring in multi-pronged ways.
  - Strengthen banking supervision and consider fiscal supports during restructuring to mitigate negative spillovers on the banking sector and employment.
  - Provide social safety nets and assistance to affected workers given short-term employment costs.

### Appendix I — data description (selected variables and sources)
- Real per capita GDP: Constant GDP/total population — IMF WEO (January 2016).
- PPP per capita GDP: GDP in PPP dollars/total population — IMF WEO (January 2016).
- Capital productivity: OECD Compendium of Productivity Indicators (2016).
- Unemployment rates: IMF WEO (January 2016).
- Aggregate corporate debt-to-equity: Worldscope.
- M&A/GDP: Dealogic.
- Banking crisis dummy: Laeven and Valencia (2008).
- Financial institutions depth: Svirydzenka (2016).
- Fiscal balance and government debt: IMF WEO (January 2016).
- Country sample (33 advanced economies): Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong SAR, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan Province of China, United Kingdom, United States.

*Source: IMF working paper wp1717 — “Impacts of Corporate Debt Restructuring on Per Capita Real GDP” (selected sections).*

### 1. Impacts of Corporate Debt Restructuring on Per Capita Real GDP ....................................17

### 1. Impacts of Corporate Debt Restructuring on Per Capita Real GDP ....................................17

### I. INTRODUCTION
- Context and drivers
  - Korean corporates have faced significant challenges due to sluggish global trade and rising competition from emerging markets, particularly China.
  - Heavy industrial sectors underpinning past growth—e.g., shipbuilding and shipping—are confronting uncertain prospects and excess capacity; steel and petrochemical industries have also struggled with excess capacity.
- Role of restructuring and international experience
  - Authorities and corporates have stepped up multi-pronged efforts to restructure debt-distressed firms.
  - Literature and country experience emphasize:
    - Timely restructuring and the role of financial supervisory authorities to encourage banks to carry out loan restructuring (Inoue, 2008).
    - Clear guidelines to facilitate collective workouts (e.g., the London Approach).
    - Financial soundness of banks to enable earlier action.
    - Flexibility in out-of-court restructuring (Grigorian, 2010).
    - Importance of market infrastructure, including M&As, buyout funds, and transparent disclosure of corporate conditions, as observed in the United States.
    - Multi-faceted debt restructuring approaches as part of successful restructurings (Eagle, 2014).
- Empirical objectives and scope of analysis
  - This paper estimates macro effects of corporate restructuring using cross-country panel fixed effects models for 33 advanced economies from 1992–2012.
  - Key empirical questions:
    - Do macro effects of corporate restructuring yield positive or negative impacts in the short term and/or medium term?
    - If positive, what are possible channels; if negative, what are possible channels?
    - What is the effect of a rise in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) on growth?
  - Model specifications:
    - Estimates effect of a reduction in aggregate corporate debt-to-equity on real GDP growth.
    - Estimates effects of systemic debt reduction periods via a corporate restructuring dummy on real GDP growth.
    - Estimates impacts of M&A on growth.
- Prior micro-level findings referenced
  - Debt overhang has a negative effect on investment (Vermeulen 2000; Goretti and Souto 2013).
  - Goretti and Souto (2013) find debt overhang negatively impacts a firm’s investment-to-capital ratio using firm-level debt-to-equity and interest coverage proxies.
  - Coricelli and others (2010) find high leverage can lower growth through higher likelihood of financial distress and bankruptcy.
  - Bernanke and others (1999) frame weak balance sheets as a drag on investment and an amplifier of shocks (financial accelerator).
  - Kim (2003) finds medium-term output gains from corporate restructuring exceed short-term costs using firm-level data.
  - Choi and Han (2013) find significant positive abnormal returns on announcements of spin-ins.

### II. APPROACH TO CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING
- Definitions and levels
  - Corporate restructuring: discrete decisive measures to increase competitiveness and enhance firm value; involves operational or financing improvements to transform the firm or enable survival (Crum and Goldberg, 1998; Vyas, 1997).
  - Levels of restructuring:
    - Whole economy level: long-term, systemic response to technological changes, market trends, and macroeconomic conditions.
    - Industry level: production-structure changes and new arrangements across firms.
    - Firm level: new business strategies and internal reorganization to adapt to market conditions (Vyas, 1997).
- Types of restructuring
  - Categorized as operational restructuring, financial restructuring, and investment restructuring (Vyas, 1997).
    - Operational restructuring: reduce labor and production costs; improve production mix; introduce new products; enhance distribution channels.
    - Investment restructuring: changes in fixed capital or working capital investment.
    - Financial restructuring: reduction of debt; injections of capital; debt-to-equity swaps; restructuring of debt including reduced interest rates, longer maturities, or partial debt write-downs; asset sales; equity issues.
  - Restructuring forms in practice: financial restructuring, mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, buy-outs, and redesigning business lines and organization.
  - Debt restructuring classifications:
    - Formal restructuring: bankruptcy or liquidation.
    - Informal restructuring: debt transfers to a government agency, work-out department, or bank subsidiary; debt-for-debt swaps; equity-for-debt swaps; debt sales.

### III. CORPORATE CONDITION AND RESTRUCTURING IN KOREA
- Aggregate conditions and vulnerabilities
  - Aggregate corporate sector appears relatively healthy, but pockets of vulnerabilities have arisen.
  - Overall corporate leverage remains relatively low, but profitability has fallen since 2010—partly due to sluggish global trade and competition from emerging markets, particularly China—contrasting with other advanced economies where profitability remains stable or has improved.
  - Weaker firms have become more leveraged while their profits have declined sharply; this contrasts with Japanese firms that have seen a recovery in profitability and a reduction in leverage since 2010.
- Sectoral pressures
  - Shipbuilding, shipping, petrochemical, steel, and construction industries have been particularly affected by slowing global trade, competition with Chinese firms, and global overcapacity.
  - Some large firms in shipbuilding and shipping posted record losses, plummeting revenues, elevated leverage, and a liquidity squeeze.
- Illustrative indicators (as described in source figures)
  - Shipbuilders: Return on Assets series for Hyundai Heavy Industries, Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering, Samsung Engineering showing negative and volatile ROA in the 2006–2015 period.
  - Shipping firms: Leverage (total liabilities to equity ratio) series for Hyundai Merchant Marine and Hanjin Shipping showing elevated leverage in the 2006–2015 period.
- Credit risk and policy bank exposures
  - Credit risks have risen and most firms’ credit ratings have been downgraded, implying heightened credit risk to the banking sector.
  - Banks’ credit to shipbuilding and shipping firms is large.
  - Two policy banks’ exposures as of March 2016:
    - Korea EXIM: W 38 trillion (2½ percent of GDP).
    - KDB: W 20 trillion (1¼ percent of GDP).
  - These policy banks have been facing potential loan losses, which could affect their capital position and policy lending capacity.
- Policy response precedent
  - Authorities have made arrangements for policy bank recapitalization, building on similar experience in early 2009.
  - The Bank Recapitalization Fund in 2009:
    - Size envisaged up to W 20 trillion, with financing from up to W 10 trillion from the Bank of Korea, W 2 trillion won from KDB, and W 8 trillion from investors.
    - The Bank of Korea lent short-term loans of W 3.3 trillion and KDB provided loans of W [content truncated in source at this point].

*Source: wp1717 - 1. Impacts of Corporate Debt Restructuring on Per Capita Real GDP ....................................17*

### 0.7 trillion. The fund purchased hybrid securities of W 3.5 trillion and subordinate debt

### wp1717 - 0.7 trillion. The fund purchased hybrid securities of W 3.5 trillion and subordinate debt

### Fund purchases and operation
- The fund purchased hybrid securities of W 3.5 trillion and subordinate debt securities of W 0.5 trillion of eight commercial bank or regional banks.
- The fund was in operation through 2014.

### Policy Bank Recapitalization Fund (2016)
- Government supplementary budget allocations:
  - W 1 trillion to Korea EXIM.
  - W 0.4 trillion to KDB.
- Policy Bank Recapitalization Fund details:
  - Up to W 11 trillion as a contingency plan to cope with possible systemic risks.
  - Financing:
    - W 1 trillion in loans from the Industrial Bank of Korea.
    - Up to W 10 trillion in short-term loans from the BOK.
  - The fund will purchase policy banks’ Tier 1 or Tier 2 contingent convertible (CoCo) bonds, on a capital-call basis.
  - Size and actual use depend on the extent and speed of corporate restructuring and credit conditions of vulnerable industries.
  - The fund will likely be in operation through end-2017, and may be changed during the end-year review of the fund.

### Three-track restructuring strategy (based on urgency and risk)
- Track 1: Industry-wide restructuring in cyclically sensitive industries (shipbuilding and shipping).
  - Public sector closely involved because policy banks are main creditor banks.
  - Main creditor banks encouraged debt-distressed firms to present comprehensive revitalization plans.
  - Three major shipbuilding firms’ revitalization plans amounted to W 10.3 trillion (0.7 percent of GDP), including sale of non-core assets, business reorganization, and downsizing.
  - Major shipping firms reached debt reduction agreements with creditors or negotiated charter fees.
- Track 2: Restructuring of individual weak firms through banks’ regular credit assessment under financial supervisors’ oversight.
  - Based on the Corporate Restructuring Act, banks assess credit risk and may agree on financial restructuring via workout or rehabilitation programs.
  - Corporates under debt restructuring rose to 229 as of end-2015 (including 54 large corporations), from 159 firms in 2014.
- Track 3: Preemptive industry restructuring led by industry (M&A, downsizing, business line exchanges) to address overcapacity (e.g., petrochemical, steel).
  - The Corporate Vitality Enhancement Act (“One-Shot Law”), effective August 2016, facilitates M&A and restructuring via streamlined legal procedures and tax incentives (e.g., deferral of capital gains tax from equity transfers, and installment payments of transfer gains tax).

### Observations on restructuring progress and institutional gaps
- Despite improved restructuring framework and a historical track record, progress since 2011 has been slower than desired.
- Factors slowing restructuring:
  - Uncertain industry outlook leading banks to delay loan restructuring for fear of loss realization.
  - Concerns about negative effects on employment, regional economies, and potential difficulties for major firms.
- Suggested institutional improvements (drawing on international experience):
  - A larger role for capital markets in normal times:
    - Private equity funds limited by size; low historical M&A activity despite recent pickup.
    - Underdeveloped non-performing-loans market.
  - Strengthen out-of-court restructuring framework:
    - Uncertainty over loss sharing between bank and nonbank creditors; banks have less incentive to initiate restructuring.
    - Korea’s revised Corporate Restructuring Promotion Act (effective March 2016) extends coverage to all creditors including bond creditors and offshore financial institutions, and strengthens main creditor banks’ rights to request other creditors to freeze exercise of creditor rights.
    - Essential to build good track records of out-of-court restructuring under the new law.

### Lessons from corporate restructuring in other countries
- Swift, timely restructuring is crucial to remove uncertainty; delayed restructuring can result in sluggish investment and weak productivity growth.
- Role of financial supervisors:
  - Supervisors should proactively encourage banks to carry out loan restructuring, notably through debt-equity swaps.
- Risks/costs of government intervention:
  - Government ownership resulting from rescue can incur significant costs; SOEs tend to incur higher debt costs.
- Supportive fiscal policy:
  - Supportive fiscal policy and enhanced social safety nets may help incentivize and facilitate restructuring, particularly where property market weakness or unemployment rises.
- Banking soundness:
  - Banks’ sufficient capital position is key to enabling timely loss recognition and recapitalization; otherwise government may need to enforce recognition of losses and recapitalize banks.
- Legal and market infrastructure:
  - Clear guidelines and proper legal frameworks support out-of-court restructuring and enable speedy collective workouts.
  - Market infrastructure improvements (transparent disclosure, deeper M&A and buyout markets) facilitate restructuring in normal times.
  - Tax regimes matter: favorable tax treatment on debt write-offs encourages restructuring; common law systems tend to provide more favorable tax treatment than civil law systems.
- Dimension and degree of firm restructuring:
  - Multi-faceted debt restructuring (financial and operational) observed in shipping industry cases: lenders collaborating, Chapter 11 use, debt sales, significant private equity/hedge fund roles, shipping investment funds, disposing non-core assets, waiving covenants, simultaneous capital reorganization.
  - Cross-industry spinoffs and focused business reorganization can improve operating performance.
  - Management reliability and competency are critical for successful debt renegotiation.

### Empirical analysis — data, stylized facts, and econometric findings
- Data sources and sample:
  - Main variables from IMF’s World Economic Outlook database (January 2016).
  - Capital productivity from OECD.
  - Aggregate corporate debt-to-equity from Worldscope.
  - M&A data from Dealogic.
  - Crisis dummy from Laeven and Valencia (2012).
  - Financial institution depth from Svirydzenka (2016).
  - Panel of 33 advanced economies, 1992–2012 (annual data).
- Stylized relationships (OLS fitted lines, not controlled for other variables):
  - Initial corporate debt-to-equity vs. subsequent real per capita GDP growth:
    - Coefficient of initial corporate debt-to-equity is around -0.009.
    - Suggests a 10 percentage decrease in initial corporate debt-to-equity could be associated with a subsequent increase in real per capital GDP of around 0.09 percentage points.
  - M&A activity vs. per capita real GDP growth:
    - A 10 percent increase in M&A activity could lead to a 0.02 increase in real per capital GDP growth with a lag of two years.
  - Initial corporate debt-to-equity vs. investment-to-GDP (lag of one year):
    - Coefficient of initial corporate debt-to-equity is around -0.53.
    - Suggests a 10 percentage reduction in initial corporate debt-to-equity could be associated with a subsequent increase in investment-to-GDP of around 5.3 percentage points.
  - Initial corporate debt-to-equity vs. capital productivity:
    - A 10 percent reduction in debt-to-equity could be linked with a subsequent rise in capital productivity of around 9 percentage points.
- Econometric model and key results:
  - Panel fixed effects model for 33 advanced economies, 1992–2012, estimating impact of aggregate corporate debt-to-equity and corporate restructuring periods on growth.
  - Corporate restructuring dummy (DUMCDR) defined as more than 12 percent decline (y/y) in debt-to-equity of 75th percentile firms in a given year.
  - Interaction with financial institution depth (DUMCDR × FID) to estimate spillovers via financial sector.
  - Banking crisis dummy included to address endogeneity.
  - Main findings:
    - Debt-to-equity has a negative and statistically significant coefficient with real per capita GDP: a reduction in corporate leverage is associated with a positive effect on growth with a lag of one year.
    - Corporate debt restructuring dummy has a positive and statistically significant coefficient: broad corporate restructuring periods (D/E of 75 percentile high debt-to-equity firms drops more than 12 year-on-year percent) are followed by positive real GDP growth with a lag of one year.
    - Lagged initial PPP per capita GDP has a negative and statistically significant coefficient, consistent with income convergence theory.

*Source: IMF working paper wp1717 (selected sections).*

### Appendix I provides more detailed description of data.

### wp1717 - Appendix I provides more detailed description of data.

### Impacts of Corporate Debt Restructuring on Per Capita Real GDP (summary of Table 1)
- Panel estimation: unbalanced country panel fixed effects models for 33 advanced economies; robust standard errors clustered by country. Significance at *p <0.10, **p <0.05, ***p <0.01.
- Key coefficient estimates (selected, as reported):
  - Lagged initial PPP per capita GDP: -0.07*** (0.00); -0.08*** (0.00); -0.08** (0.00)
  - Lagged banking crisis dummy: -0.012*** (0.00); -0.013*** (0.00); -0.013*** (0.00)
  - Lagged Debt-to-equity: -0.005*** (0.00); -0.005*** (0.00); -0.005*** (0.00)
  - Lagged Corporate restructuring dummy: 0.004* (0.07); 0.005* (0.06); 0.02*** (0.00)
  - Interaction: Lagged corporate restructuring dummy * financial institutions development: -0.025** (0.01)
  - Lagged government gross debt: -0.005 (0.51); -0.007 (0.38)
  - Lagged government fiscal balance: -0.027 (0.49); -0.031 (0.40)
- Sample sizes and goodness of fit:
  - Sample size: 586 551 551 (panels reported)
  - R-sq: 0.58 0.60 0.59
- Interpretation from authors:
  - Corporate restructuring dummy generally positive and statistically significant with real GDP growth.
  - Financial-spillover interaction term negative and statistically significant, suggesting negative spillovers via financial channels (e.g., tighter lending conditions, rise in NPLs) can partly offset positive impact of debt restructuring.

### Impacts of M&A on Per Capita Real GDP (summary of Table 2)
- Panel fixed effects model for 33 advanced economies; robust standard errors clustered by country. Significance at *p <0.10, **p <0.05, ***p <0.01.
- Reported result:
  - Lagged M&A to GDP (lag of two years) has a positive and statistically significant coefficient with real GDP growth: 0.004** (0.01); 0.004*** (0.01); 0.004*** (0.01) across panels.
- Authors' interpretation:
  - M&A/GDP positively associated with real GDP growth with a lag of two years.
  - Longer lag likely reflects time needed to realize synergies from integration.

### Short-term effect of corporate debt restructuring on employment (summary of Table 3)
- Models: unbalanced country panel fixed effects for 33 advanced economies; robust standard errors; significance at *p <0.10, **p <0.05, ***p <0.01.
- Selected coefficient estimates:
  - Initial PPP per capita GDP: -0.06*** (0.00); -0.07*** (0.00); -0.05*** (0.00); -0.05*** (0.00)
  - Banking crisis dummy: 0.008*** (0.01); 0.004* (0.07); 0.01*** (0.00); 0.009*** (0.00)
  - Debt-to-equity: -0.003** (0.01); -0.001 (0.21); -0.000 (0.95); 0.002 (0.12)
  - Corporate restructuring dummy: 0.002 (0.21); 0.004** (0.04); 0.001 (0.64); 0.002 (0.31)
  - Government gross debt: 0.04*** (0.00); 0.04*** (0.00)
  - Government fiscal balance: -0.16*** (0.00); -0.20*** (0.00)
- Sample sizes and R-sq:
  - Sample size: 586 551 586 551
  - R-sq: 0.77 0.84 0.77 0.83
- Interpretation from authors:
  - Corporate debt-to-equity negatively associated with unemployment rates in same period (short-term).
  - Corporate restructuring dummy positively associated with unemployment rates in same period (short-term).
  - Negative employment effects appear limited to short term; not found at a one-year lag in some panels.
  - Policy implication: adequate social safety nets and assistance to affected workers are important during restructuring.

### Channels: Investment and Capital Productivity (summary of Table 4)
- Models: unbalanced country panel fixed effects for 33 advanced economies; robust standard errors; significance at *p <0.10, **p <0.05, ***p <0.01.
- Selected coefficient estimates for Investment to GDP growth and Capital Productivity:
  - Lagged initial PPP per capita GDP: -3.71*** (0.00); -4.32*** (0.01); -10.61*** (0.00); -10.13*** (0.00)
  - Lagged banking crisis dummy: -0.80*** (0.00); -0.68** (0.03); -0.84** (0.02); -0.98*** (0.00)
  - Lagged Debt-to-equity: -0.43*** (0.00); -0.43*** (0.00); -0.68*** (0.00); -0.61*** (0.00)
  - Lagged Corporate restructuring dummy: 0.36* (0.08); 0.43** (0.05); 0.26 (0.23); 0.29 (0.16)
  - Lagged government gross debt: 0.45 (0.50); 3.3*** (0.00)
  - Lagged government fiscal balance: 6.08* (0.06); 6.5* (0.06)
  - Constants: 38.49*** (0.00); 44.58*** (0.01); 109.0*** (0.00); 102.18*** (0.00)
- Sample sizes and R-sq:
  - Sample size: 586 551 341 332
  - R-sq: 0.34 0.36 0.62 0.65
- Interpretation from authors:
  - Debt-to-equity negatively associated with investment and capital productivity.
  - Corporate debt restructuring dummy positively associated with investment with a lag of one year.
  - Suggests main positive channel of corporate restructuring on growth is via increased investment and improved capital productivity.

### Conclusions and policy-relevant findings
- Main empirical findings:
  - Both corporate debt restructuring and M&A activity have a positive effect on real GDP growth with time lags.
  - Debt restructuring can raise investment and capital productivity in the medium term.
  - Corporate restructuring can have negative short-term effects on employment and negative spillovers to the financial sector.
- Policy implications and lessons from international experience (as stated by authors):
  - Importance of swift, timely restructuring with active role for financial supervisory authorities to encourage credit restructuring.
  - Ensure capital adequacy of banks and consider appropriate government facilitation of restructuring.
  - Provide clear guidelines to facilitate collective workouts that include non-financial creditors.
  - Establish an appropriate regulatory framework for spin-in and M&A activity.
  - Develop market infrastructure to promote corporate restructuring in normal times.
  - Implement firm-level financial and operational restructuring in multi-pronged ways.
  - Strengthen banking supervision and consider fiscal supports during restructuring to mitigate negative spillovers on the banking sector and employment.
  - Provide social safety nets and assistance to affected workers given short-term employment costs.

### Appendix 1 — Description of Data (variables and sources)
- Real per capita GDP: Constant GDP/total population — IMF WEO (January 2016)
- purchasing-power-parity per Capita GDP: GDP in PPP dollars/total population — IMF WEO (January 2016)
- Capital productivity: the ratio between the volume of output (GDP), and the volume of capital input, defined as the flow of productive services that capital delivers in production, i.e. capital services. — OECD Compendium of Productivity Indicators (2016)
- Unemployment rates: The number of unemployed persons as a percentage of the labor force — IMF WEO (January 2016)
- Aggregate corporate debt-to-equity: Debt/equity — Worldscope
- M&A/GDP: the total amount of mergers and acquisition/nominal GDP — Dealogic
- Banking crisis dummy: Significant signs of financial distress in the banking system defined by Laeven and Valencia (2008) — Laeven and Valencia (2008)
- Financial institutions depth: Consisted of private sector credit to GDP, pension fund assets to GDP, mutual fund assets to GDP, insurance premiums to GDP — Svirydzenka (2016)
- Fiscal balance (percent of GDP): (Expenditure-Revenue)/nominal GDP — IMF WEO (January 2016)
- Government debt (percent of GDP): Gross debt consists of all liabilities that require payment or payments of interest and/or principal by the debtor to the creditor at a date or dates in the future. Gross debt is divided by nominal GDP — IMF WEO (January 2016)

### Appendix 2 — Country sample (list as provided)
- Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong SAR, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan Province of China, United Kingdom, United States

*Source: wp1717 - Appendix I provides more detailed description of data.*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/wp1717.pdf_